Okay a simple question why not Fore warp nacelles, almost every schematic I’ve looked at lately has Aft nacelles explanation? You ask, well here is an example of Aft:
And this is as close as I could find to nacelles in the fore. For some reason it seems that a nacelle to the fore may be more efficient then an aft nacelle. Please voice you concerns, ideas and theories.
[ June 04, 2002, 15:41: Message edited by: koy'peled Oy'tio ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There is no "push" or "pull" when it comes to continuum distortion propulsion. With nothing to act a force upon, there's no such analogy. Nacelle placement affects field flow energy, yes...but that's it. Using your theory, Cardassian Galor-class ships--& most other vessels in the galaxy--would go nowhere since they have midmounted "embedded" engines.
It's not a propeller or a jet.
quote:...and don’t worry Defiant this isn't a bash thread. (Although I really don't have any control over it.)
Then why mention it, hmm?
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
Please clarify. No matter what kind of propulsion you are talking about it requires speed which implies force and a set equation V/c = WF(10/3)
Or
V/c = WF[{(10/3)+a*(-Ln(10-WF))^n}+f1*((WF-9)^5)+f2*((WF-9)^11)], which in essence means travelling at or more than light speed. So then which also implies a push pull factor, now I have already indicated this thread to be about warp fields so x being the field of fore and y being field of aft your would have this:
y | x
| = Warp core, also remember the hull is an important part of warp theory. now include nacelle placement. rear placement
Y-| x
-= nacelles
Front placement
Y |-x
[ June 03, 2002, 09:02: Message edited by: koy'peled Oy'tio ]
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
^^^That makes no sense to me^^^
Koy, until the ~word omitted~ posts, I like the thread.
Anyway, it's always easier to shove a guy down a flight of stairs than to pull him down one. That may or may not apply to Warp speeds, but I would figure that push is the optimum arrangement for a Galaxy or Intrepid Class. Since the bulk of the mass of the ship is in the saucer section, they only have to produce enough power to get to Warp 5, and then maintain a little less, like 4.5 because the mass of the saucer keeps it going at Wapr 5, dragging the ship behind. Like a fat guy falling down a flight of stairs will stop later than a thin guy falling down a flight of stairs. But the wieghing factor would be how big the nacelles were, because the more massive, it would give a bigger push. You can't really count the Intrepid Class on this, one because the nacelles are so dern small, and they looked like they would explode if the went to FTL travel. BTW, It always appeared to me that the Bellerophon had bigger nacelles that the rest, don't ya think?
[ June 03, 2002, 20:39: Message edited by: The Defiant ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
If I take a piece of paper, place a toy on it, & then ripple the paper in wavelike form, the toy moves forward. There's no "motive force" to speak of. It's mere active friction of the space itself against the hull.
When driving a car, the engine turns the driveshaft which turns the wheels which push (or pull depending on gear) against the surface of the road to impel the vehicle. But radiated field energy has nothing to impel against except...itself.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The TNG tech manual probably gives a pretty detailed explanation of this. And like others have said, the nacelles emit the warp field, but they're not pushing the ship. Nor would forward-placed nacelles be pulling the ship.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
by warping the fabric of space around the ship, the nacelles arent making the ship go fast, they are warping space so that it would be impossible for the ship to stay at rest. velocity doesnt apply except in reference to the distance they have traveled when they shut down the warp.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
This is purely a Technology Question. This belongs to Starships and Technologies section. Off it goes.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
MIB, well now I have to post since you mentioned me.
Koy, you could learn a lot if you listened to Shik. I'm sure some people at the TrekBBS would be silly enough to go for this whole bit. Now, me, I'm not big on tech. But even I am well aware it doesn't matter where on a ship the warp nacelles are located -- starships are not automobiles.
Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :
quote:Originally posted by koy'peled Oy'tio: For some reason it seems that a nacelle that pulls may be more efficient then a pushing nacelle...there has got to be a better word than push and pull.
Well, I think there's a difference between saying whether the nacelles are front- or rear-mounted and saying whether they pull or push.
The way I've always vizualized the warp field working is, as the TNGTM states, a peristaltic action. So, in a sense, there's 'pull' at the front and 'push' at the back.
Where does the net force act? If at the centre of each nacelle, then we could reasonably say that the Sovereign class is indeed a 'pusher' -- mostly, as this force would have to be transmitted forward along the nacelle pylons.
Perhaps this is where the sharp backwards sweep of the pylons comes from? In that case, what about the Intrepid's near lack of fore/aft sweep?
Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :
Oh, yeah, and one of the conjectural (and, of course, non-canon) designs for the Nova class at the end of TMGTM shows a very much 'pull' design. The nacelles are alomost right at the front:
[ June 03, 2002, 12:09: Message edited by: Eclipse ]
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
now you see what i mean, there really wasn't an easy and understandable way to explain it. Anyway another warp field flaw (non-canon) is the existance of curved nacelles, which in my opinion is starting to push the barrier of warp field dynamics but picture this: curved forward nacelles that a perpandicular to the ship like some concepts of the D'deridex warbirds, things could get really complicated.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: by warping the fabric of space around the ship, the nacelles arent making the ship go fast, they are warping space so that it would be impossible for the ship to stay at rest. velocity doesnt apply except in reference to the distance they have traveled when they shut down the warp.
So if I understand this correctly, the longer the nacelle, the more it warps space so it goes faster? Which is why the Sovies are fast, and yet again, the Intrepid Class throws a wrench in it.
If any of this is contradicted by the TNG Tech Manual, forgive me. I only have to wait 4 more biusness days till Barnes and Noble shuffle in the warehouse and gets it for me. Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
so then you'll be recieving it in a few weeks?hehehe Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
It's like they can't go in the back of the damn store and get the damn book. Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
A rear engine car pushes the car. A front engine car pulls the car. Makes sense?
I do not think that's how it workd but gives you an idea.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
As far as I can tell, the basic question in this thread is "why are the nacelles in the back of the ship, and not in the front?".
The answer is "because that's the way Matt Jefferies designed the Enterprise".
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Come on TSN, your ruining the discussion.
But it's a suprise, if the Federation new this, they wouldn't design more ships with long, middle positioned warp nacelles for efficency. That is why designs like the Sabre, Steamrunner, and Olympic classes make the most sense nacelle wise. But those are the odd shaped ships, which makes no sense. Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
whoa settle down my neghbors dog can hear you...must've figured out that 0's and 1's thing
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Well, we've got to put into account that nobody knew how stuff worked when Jefferies designed it. Which now we, the fanboys, have to explain. Which is why Koy' created this thread. Now I'm more confused.
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
*in muffled swat voice* thanks for the back up
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
With back up like MIB, who needs enemies?
But the whole pull/push thing is nonsense. Just call it rear- or fore-mounted nacelles.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Anytime Koy, Anytime.
For more backup check the Gettin’ comfy with Enterprise thread, my last post.
Snay, your going to need backup when someone higher up than you get's on your case because the wole MIB thing you have agaist me. Am I the only one tired of the MIB nonsense?
Maybe the delfector has something to do with it too. It's beam, while pushing away space junk could alter the field for more efficency.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
My surprise is that you have neglected the ship your named after... mid-mount nacelles....
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, lots of other people have tired of the MIB nonsense. They agree with me that you are MIB, but ask only that I rub it in your face when you deny it. Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Is it just my sucrose induced sense or are we in for a major thread hijacking?
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
I am really sick of this guy. Someone figure out if he's actually MIB, and if so ban him. If he isn't, ban him anyway. When's the last decent thread we've had with him here? Either because of him, or Snay and the lot. It's gotten real old, real quick.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Let me first say that I have no idea why I am posting this... the entire topic is stupid.
Placement of warp nacelles does not change how they work. The warp field encompasses the ship and "squeezes" it forward... thus a pushing action. -- There is no pull. A warp field flipped around doesn't pull a ship, it pushes it in reverse.
But this entire thread goes to a a root problem. WARP NACELLES DOESN'T CAUSE PROPULSION! It's the Warp Field they create. Wake up, it's not the Engine, it's the explosive force of a gasoline-air mixture pushing a piston which rotates a crank shaft which turns an axle and wheel. Nacelles are necessary, an Engine is necessary, but it's not the propulsive force.
The statements of front and rear drive don't apply to nacelles. If you are in a front drive car the wheels spin towards the front of the car, it's the same way in a rear drive car. THE FORCE IS THE SAME. A ship with nacelles up front create a warp field with the same shape [and thus same dynamics] as a ship with nacelles in the rear.
Warp fields can only push, they can push you forward or even push you in reverse [given the right conditions].
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Um, I never reall thought about that, J. But one nitpick: If you take Sovvie nacelles and put them up front that might change the field a little. Whatever.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A little forward of it's present position....
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
KO: I'm not sure why you're presenting Bradbury as an example of a pulling ship. The nacelles are in the back as in most ships. Maybe the left pointing orientation has confused you?
As far as why Fed ships always have rear or mid-mounted nacelles, it's just a convention, as is having a neck or a primary hull disk. I suspect that there must be some marginal advantage to having these layouts, but the fact that other races' ships look different suggests that the Fed way is not the only way. These other ways must have other advantages, which Earth ships choose not to make use of. Earth warp ships might have explored many different layouts in the early days (like early jet-powered aircraft), but eventually settled down to the standard layouts we have now. I've sketched out some early ships with unusual nacelle placements (such as various hammerheads with two, three, or four nacelles; various types of midline nacelles), but they look too weird (not for public viewing).
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
I could take a gander at them...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
From my understanding of all the Treknologies involved, nacelle placement is a secondary engineering artifact. That is, they could happily be anywhere on the ship for their primary function, but other considerations tend to keep them in the positions we're accustomed to seeing.
Grante dthis only applies to Federation ship construction tech -- and, given what we've seen of some Vulcan design aesthetics, maybe even more of a Terran engineering bias.
First of all, warp travel is indeed non-Newtonian. THere is no inertia, no 'pushing' or 'pulling' the ship, but simply the direction in which the space/time continuum slips by, based on the warp coils' firing sequence and rate (or something very like that).
Mass and inertia do, however, play a role in sublight propulsion and maneuvering. Granted, the warp and impulse engines do create an apparant-mass-reducing subspace field around the ship to facilitate acceleration and maneuvering, but the ship's volume and density remain the same, and this will effect the stresses placed on the structural elements. The structural integrity field would help, but designing and building a ship to work with these stresses, rather than against them, is still your best bet, especially as the ships (and specifically the engines) become larger and more massive. Remembver, the average mass ratio is for the warp coils to comprise some 40% of the ship's total mass.
All this begs the question 'well, why build the ships with the nacelles out on those pylons, then?'... According to Matt Jeffries, and those who came after, a side effect of the engines operating (whether propulsively or just idling) is a tremendous electromagnetic field, which we've known for a long time is harmful to living beings. As propulsion technology improved to the degree that ships no longer needed to accelerate from the warp threshold (the speed of light) to their cruising velocity, but could instead 'jump' from a standstill to their target speed, the energy needed to initially tunnel the ship into subspace rose dramatically. Hence the really damn bright flash of the Galaxy class jumping to warp.
Granted, we have the field and shielding technology to protect the occupants of aship from this radiation, but it's still safer to keep the engines out away from the habitable volume to minimize risk of exposure in the event of shielding failure. This was one of the initial objections I had to the Defiant and Steamrunner classes, but I've since grumblingly accepted that they're more concerned with protecting the engines in combat than ensuring the safety and health of the crew.
So... have I rambled on long enough?
--Jonah
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
hey Peregrinus, u've rambled on long enough, hopefully the newbies listen to ya and shut up. respect Peregrinus, he's got the right answer!
Buzz
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Double Post.
[ June 04, 2002, 07:50: Message edited by: Matrix ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Ok I am getting really fucking tired of the MIB bullshit. The Defiant has PMed me a few times asking me why Snay is calling him MIB. I for one do not think The Defiant is not MIB. MIB is dead, let him die.
As for the topic itself, it really doesn't matter where the nacelles are placed. We have seen midline, rear, imbedded, single internal (BoP), but none of them i have yet to see or remember had nacelles placed in front.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
I would be cool to see them in the front, and besides, Koy asked a good question, and even though we (4 buisiness days=40 years) had the answer, it gave us something to talk about.
But didn't Jefferies say that electromagnetism gave them warp speed?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
But we really don't have the answer.
I still don't think anyone has come up with a canon example of a ship with warp coils at the front.
If there are then - pics?
If there are not then mayhaps there IS a reason to have trailing nacelles/coils....
Oh - and Snay, I think what your neighbors here are trying to say is that your "annoying factor" has exceeded that of The Defiant's.
[ June 04, 2002, 08:24: Message edited by: Toadkiller ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
No one reads, apparently. Toadkiller, do yourself a favor and figure out when the last time I brought the "matter" up, m'kay?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The closest thing to a forward-nacelled Federation vessel would probably be the original Probert shuttle design that was axed from TNG. Those forward prongs probably held the subspace coils of that craft. (We can safely assume the craft would have been capable of warp or at least of subspace-augmented impulse - the writers would have ignored any suggestion that this be a sub-impulse vessel!)
The Ferengi shuttle has similar prongs, and possibly mounts warp engines in those...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Peregrinus, I work on MRI's and to reduce the size of the magnetic field, we employ an active shielding arround the magnetic core. As you could understand a strong magnetic field in a hospital could cause all sorts of problems and since most hosp. were not built to house an MRI then shielding is important. Could the fed. have found a way to provide active shielding of the strong EM field for use in the defiant class ships. It could be too massive to employ on large necelles, or not nessarry seeing as the the pylon method works. But given the size restraints of the defiant class it might have been useful.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
In the same vein, the Vulcan warpshuttle. Oh, & regarding the "dangerous EM fields," they couldn't have been that dangerous or maybe the shielding was better by TNG if we had daily duty posts IN the nacelle itself. Or maybe SOP for that post is a trusty ol' radiation inoculation every week. (as he hears Bernd's heart seize from across the Atlantic...)
[ June 04, 2002, 08:58: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Jefferies of course didnt come up with the warp coil or the warp field.. he said, like Roddenberry, that the future science should be vague (since it wasnt the star of the show, the people were). He simply stated that he imagined the nacelle acted like two giant magnets, suspended away from the ship, with the field interacting between them (hence the empty space). That was why nacelles were always supposed to be in pairs, and always supposed to have nothing in between them. Most of the other rules of 'Jefferies/Roddenberry warp physics' remain followed today (that nacelles should alway be at least partially visible in the forward view [i.e. nothing in front of them]), and that they be suspended away from the body of the ship. The ships with inboard nacelles are of course possible, but it almost looks like they disregarded the 'empty space between them' rule (to be fair, the nacelles on the Steamrunner, Defiant and Delta Flyer all curve below the axis of the ships hull to have empty space between them, so they are departures but not violations, as the Cardassian Galor is. And of course we know the ships that violate the paired rule: Freedom and the Galaxy refit. (and of course the Hermes, Saladin and Federation, but fans want to explain that away so badly...). This 'interaction' was slated to be shown, as energy arcing between the nacelles' inner surfaces in TMP, but was later dropped.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Are we not counting the Saber Class as a ship with forward nacelles? I mean, the things are attached to the front of the ship. Or are speaking strictly of ships whose nacelles extend forward of the hull proper?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I think they mean nacelles extending out ahead of the ship.... like in I think at least one of the TNG TM designs [canon or not that's the closest thing I can think of].
Reverse Warp is possible all the same. If you reverse the firing sequence of the plasma injectors you'll reverse the field dynamic [instead of being "squeezed" forward, you'll be "squeezed" backwards]. The real question in this though is if the field can adapt to the change in geometry. The field must be in a completely different shape for this to work. If you look at the diagrams of the GCS' warp field you'll note that from the top or side perspective the warp field is smaller in back and larger in front. This is partly because the ship is built that way, but it is also necessary for the peristaltic action [subspace isn't entirely newtonian but we can say that if the forces involved are imbalanced there will be a reaction]. The GCS isn't built for reverse warp, so the warp field would have to be modified to a severe degree IMO. In fact it seems to me that to reverse at Warp 1 is going to be much more costly than forward at Warp 1, at least in power and efficiency. --- The Defiant does have an advantage in this though, it's warp field doesn't appear to need modification because the ship's hull is fairly regular [the Sabre, Akira, & Steamrunner may also have this advantage].
---This says nothing for modifying the SIF and IDF for reverse Warp.
[ June 04, 2002, 12:35: Message edited by: J ]
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
i need to upload an image, i reversed the saucer section and the nacelles on the sovvie. Looks kin of cool.
[ June 04, 2002, 15:48: Message edited by: koy'peled Oy'tio ]
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
I hope it don't look like what I think... Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Putting large and long objects in front of a starship, block its forward weapons arc, making sure that they're in the way of whatever the ship might run into...
Absolutely bloody brilliant.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
It actually might look cool.
Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Putting large and long objects in front of a starship, block its forward weapons arc, making sure that they're in the way of whatever the ship might run into...
Absolutely bloody brilliant.
When all else fails, consider the safety issues. Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Putting large and long objects in front of a starship, block its forward weapons arc, making sure that they're in the way of whatever the ship might run into...
Absolutely bloody brilliant.
Sarcasm i take it? Remember that this is a hypothetical concoction. And weapons platforms can always be adapted to accomodate things like this.
[ June 05, 2002, 07:20: Message edited by: koy'peled Oy'tio ]
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
So when are we gonna see it?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by koy'peled Oy'tio: Sarcasm i take it? Remember that this is a hypothetical concoction. And weapons platforms can always be adapted to accomodate things like this.
Common sense doesn't go away just because the situation's hypothetical. Try to come up with some actually workable solutions to those problems without resorting to an OD of technobabble, then we'll see.
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
quote: Try to come up with some actually workable solutions to those problems without resorting to an OD of technobabble, then we'll see.
Definition: You have no clue what i'm saying correct?
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Send it to me ([email protected]) or post it. No reason arguing about what we haven't seen...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Attention new people: Please seek out Flare Upload...
That is all...
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Don't you have to have 250 posts?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Defiant's got you there, Ritten. He would use the Flare Upload tool if he could, but, alas, he can't simply because he hasn't made 250 posts yet. The same currently applies to Koy as well.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, dang, I guess I better read the FAQs then....
I stand corrected.....
So, guys, post worthy postings, unlike that thing I did up there, or over there if this starts a new page...
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by koy'peled Oy'tio: Definition: You have no clue what i'm saying correct?
No, I don't know what made you think that besides a lame attempt at putting me down. I just don't want some over complicted technical solution to how why would overcome the difficulties of having something big and long block their forward weapons, sensor, navigational deflector, and so forth. Because then, it'd be rather self defeating, wouldn't it? Why would they chose something complicted with no benefits, when they can just have the nacelles behind the ship.
[ June 05, 2002, 21:27: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Because that wouldn't by KOYL!
Koy + Cool = KOYL
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i like how his picture thats there for no reason isnt actually wider than my monitor resolution this time... slowly but surely...
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
Obviously it's used to demonstrate the unfamiliar concept of Nacelles-Aft design, that none of us are aware of and hasn't been predominant for the last 36 years.
Thank you Koy for allowing me to see what the warp nacelle configuration is for the Enterprise-E and confiriming that it does indeed have aft-based nacelles. We owe you a debt which will not be difficult to repay.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Obviously weapon hardpoints on the wing tips, on the forward hull beneath the nacelle and on the nacelle itself would give fairly good coverage. But a courier doesn't need heavy weaponry anyway.
And most Cardassian ships have their 'nacelles' embedded in the wing structures at the front of the ship.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Most FASA designs scared me.
UM, let's pretend your not lying (not that you are, maybe) and ask HoW tEh HeLl DiD yOu SeE tEh ShIp!1!1! TeLl Me QuIcK1!1!
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Defiant: Most FASA designs scared me.
UM, let's pretend your not lying (not that you are, maybe) and ask HoW tEh HeLl DiD yOu SeE tEh ShIp!1!1! TeLl Me QuIcK1!1!
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: My surprise is that you have neglected the ship your named after... mid-mount nacelles....
Because they like to fly apart at Warp 8.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Ok Is ThEre A sPeCiAl KeY CoMmAnD tHaT LeT's YoU tYpE lIkE tHiS...?
It must be the "Fan Boy" key.
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
Pachunce. An gud spellin.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i was trying to find a scan of the TNG TM Nova ship with the nacelles forward dragging the rest of the ship arrangement... everyone knows that one, right
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Defiant: Most FASA designs scared me.
It's okay, they're just drawings on pieces of paper. They can't hurt you.
quote:UM, let's pretend your not lying (not that you are, maybe) and ask HoW tEh HeLl DiD yOu SeE tEh ShIp!1!1! TeLl Me QuIcK1!1!
I used my eyes. As I have good eyesite I can see most illustrations quite well. Does that answer your question? If it doesn't then maybe you could elaborate a little, but please stop spilling things on your keyboard, it makes your typing erratic.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Are you so certain that Cardassian Warp Field Coils [They Aren't Nacelles unless they hang off in cylinder pods outside the ship!] are in the wings? The Cargo freighter indicates to me that they are embedded centerline. -- And the DS9 TM, as much as we hate it, does say "deep within the hull."
Beyond all this, many here assume that grille are necessary--- on the BoP and the Cardassian ships this seems to present a problem. The only thing I can remember I would call plasma vents, but not field grille in the typical Starfleet Federation style.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The Cardassian ships had parts of their structure referred to as the 'blade' in one episode.. the forward protrusions to the left or right. I believe these are what the DS9 TM were referencing when they were saying the warp coils were not in nacelles. they do have the requisite 'glowy' spots
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yes, Tuvok referring to it as a blade seems (to me anyway) to indicate that it is a separate structure from the rest of the hull that performs a specific function. Nacelle-ish things seem as likely as not.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Geordi pulled up an Okudagram of the embedded warp engines of a Galor in "Chain of Command, Part II."
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Dang! If not for that last piece of information, I could have made an interesting and basically undisprovable claim...
Note that the Galor, the Keldon, the freighter (we need a class name!) and the Hideki all have one design feature very much in common: the pincerlike structure that's aft on most ships but forward in the freighter. That could easily have been the warp drive construct that Cardassian engineers prefer. I know Sternbach suggested it was a big disruptor thingamabob copied from the Klingons, but we never saw it fire disruptor bolts...
If the pincer thingie isn't a common engineering element, but more of a random design congruence, the Cardassian designs seem much less "familial". Only the Galors and Keldons have the orange glow. Only the freighter has this prominent aft (impulse?) glow. Well, perhaps the triangular-nacelled freighter seen docked to DS9 in the opening credits is another example of orange-glowing Cardassian design...
Any chance of getting a cap of the "Chain of Command" diagram?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: the freighter (we need a class name!)
LUG call it the Salgar class military transport. As good a name as any.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Groumall-type." It was, after all, the first instance of seeing the design.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Wait, I could have swore I've seen those prongs on Galors fire pulses before in TNG. It was against some unarmed vessel or something. No way I can rpove it, though, I hope I'm not confusing this with "Reunification" again.
Posted by The BWC (Member # 818) on :
I remember it too, in was in the sixth or seventh seasons.
When are we gonna see the ship Koy/
PS: Koy, check your PM's
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
IIRC, the Galors in "Ensign Ro" fired purple pulses from their main gun thingo at the Antares, resulting in a rather poorly-composited bang.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
It is my completely unsubstantiated theory that those pulses were infact Cardassian torpedoes, widely know for their inferiority to torpedoes fielded by other major empires.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I just don't want some over complicted technical solution to how why would overcome the difficulties of having something big and long block their forward weapons, sensor, navigational deflector, and so forth. Because then, it'd be rather self defeating, wouldn't it? Why would they chose something complicted with no benefits, when they can just have the nacelles behind the ship.